This is a MIME encoded message
--www1167922465
Content-Type: text/plain
www Thu Jan 4 09:54:25 2007 EDT
Modified files:
/modules/gerd/correlpaper correlations.bib correlations.tex
Log:
Submitting again.
--www1167922465
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="www-20070104095425.txt"
Index: modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.bib
diff -u modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.bib:1.6 modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.bib:1.7
--- modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.bib:1.6 Tue Jan 2 21:20:55 2007
+++ modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.bib Thu Jan 4 09:54:23 2007
@@ -319,4 +319,33 @@
title = "The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics"
}
+@INBOOK{disessa,
+ author = "Andrea DiSessa and Andrew Elby and David Hammer",
+ year = "2002",
+ publisher="Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ",
+ editors="Gale M. Sinatra and Paul R. Pintrich",
+ booktitle = "Intentional Conceptual Change",
+ pages = "237-290",
+ title = "J's epistemological stance and strategies"
+}
+
+@ARTICLE{hofer01,
+ author = "Barbara K. Hofer",
+ year = "2001",
+ journal = "Journal of Educational Psychology Review",
+ volume = "13",
+ pages = "353-383",
+ title = "Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and teaching"
+}
+
+@ARTICLE{hofer97,
+ author = "Barbara K. Hofer and Paul R. Pintrich",
+ year = "1997",
+ journal = "Review of Educational Research",
+ volume = "67",
+ pages = "88-140",
+ title = "The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning"
+}
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
Index: modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex:1.18 modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex:1.19
--- modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex:1.18 Tue Jan 2 21:20:55 2007
+++ modules/gerd/correlpaper/correlations.tex Thu Jan 4 09:54:23 2007
@@ -85,20 +85,25 @@
\section{\label{background}Background}
For an expert physicist, physics is much more than a vast unconnected collection of facts or the mechanics of manipulating given formulas; instead, it is a way of thinking. Students, on the other hand, tend to work from a not yet coherent set of physics factoids organized by surface features rather than physics concepts~\cite{chi} and often focus on finding the right formula for the situation rather than on the construction of new knowledge and relationships~\cite{heuvelen,larkin}.
-These and other beliefs about what constitutes knowledge in physics and how one develops knowledge are described as epistemological beliefs~\cite{hammer94,hammer96}. Different epistemological beliefs can lead to very different understandings of the same scenario. For example, expert physicists see the derivation of a formula as a way to embed the new knowledge into their existing framework, while students tend to see it as a proof that a formula is true and ``okay to be used"~\cite{mpex}. As a result, the whole process is frequently ineffective in lectures, since students would see a proof of correctness as irrelevant and would rather just trust the ``authority" (for example, a student evaluation of the course under consideration in this study stated: ``Don't derive anything, really, you have a Ph.D. I'll believe what you tell me.'')
+These and other beliefs about what constitutes knowledge in physics and how one develops knowledge are described as epistemological beliefs~\cite{hofer97,hammer94,hammer96}.
-Previous studies indicate that correlations between epistemological beliefs and academic performance exist, both directly and indirectly. For example, Schommer~ \cite{schommer93} found that belief in ``quick learning'' (characterized by seeking single answers, avoiding ambiguity, and relying on authority) negatively correlates with the GPA of secondary students, even after controlling for general intelligence. May~\cite{may02} found possible correlations between epistemological beliefs extracted from extensive lab reports and conceptual learning gain in introductory physics courses. For example, students who stated that they learned formulas (rather than investigated their conceptual implications), relied on authority, and made no efforts to interpret results were found to have lower gains on the Force Concept Inventory, Mechanics Baseline Test, and Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism. It should be remarked that the performance on conceptual tests is not necessarily directly connected to good course grades, which is an issue that students are aware of~\cite{lin} and can lead them to act contrary to their beliefs.
+Different epistemological beliefs can lead to very different understandings of the same scenario. For example, expert physicists see the derivation of a formula as a way to embed the new knowledge into their existing framework, while students tend to see it as a proof that a formula is true and ``okay to be used"~\cite{mpex}. As a result, the whole process is frequently ineffective in lectures, since students would see a proof of correctness as irrelevant and would rather just trust the ``authority"\footnote{For example, a student evaluation of the course under consideration in this study stated: ``Don't derive anything, really, you have a Ph.D. I'll believe what you tell me.''}.
+
+Previous studies indicate that correlations between epistemological beliefs and academic performance exist, both directly and indirectly~\cite{hofer97,hofer01}. For example, Schommer~ \cite{schommer93} found that belief in ``quick learning'' (characterized by seeking single answers, avoiding ambiguity, and relying on authority) negatively correlates with the GPA of secondary students, even after controlling for general intelligence. May and Etkina~\cite{may02} found possible correlations between epistemological beliefs extracted from extensive lab reports and conceptual learning gain in introductory physics courses. For example, students who stated that they learned formulas (rather than investigated their conceptual implications), relied on authority, and made no efforts to interpret results were found to have lower gains on the Force Concept Inventory, Mechanics Baseline Test, and Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism. It should be remarked that the performance on conceptual tests is not necessarily directly connected to good course grades, which is an issue that students are aware of~\cite{lin} and can lead them to act contrary to their beliefs.
Correlations between epistemologies and learning alone do not imply causal relationships. Based on videotaped classroom scenarios, written work, and interviews, Lising and Elby~\cite{lising05} argue that a more expert-like epistemology indeed leads to better learning, and thus, curricular materials and teaching techniques should explicitly attend to students' epistemological beliefs.
-The problem is how to measure these beliefs, and techniques include surveys, guided interviews, and observations. While interviews and observations are likely resulting in better data, the effort in conducting them also limits the scale at which they can be conducted. Surveys do not have this scalability problem, but
-research results regarding the predictive power of these instruments is not always conclusive: for example, Coletta and Philips~\cite{coletta05} found a strong correlation between the MPEX and FCI Gain, while Dancy~\cite{dancy02} found low correlations between the MPEX and the performance on homework, tests, and final exams. It is unclear why these studies would come to such different results regarding the predictive power of the MPEX on an individual student level. Until more insights are gained, it remains a good idea to abide by the ``Product Warning Lab''~\cite{mpexwarning} that the survey is best used to gain insights into the beliefs of the class as a whole.
+The problem is how to measure these beliefs and worsened by the fact that these beliefs might shift and that categorical approaches (i.e., dividing students into classes that hold or do not hold a certain beliefs) might be inappropriate~\cite{disessa}, as well as the fact that the students do not necessarily act according to what they know to lead to deeper learning~\cite{lin} . Techniques include surveys, guided interviews, and observations. While interviews and observations are likely resulting in better data, the effort in conducting them also limits the scale at which they can be conducted. Surveys do not have this scalability problem, but
+research results regarding the predictive power of these instruments are not always conclusive: for example, Coletta and Philips~\cite{coletta05} found a strong correlation between the MPEX and FCI Gain, while Dancy~\cite{dancy02} found low correlations between the MPEX and the performance on homework, tests, and final exams. It is unclear why these studies would come to such different results regarding the predictive power of the MPEX on an individual student level. Until more insights are gained, it remains a good idea to abide by the ``Product Warning Lab''~\cite{mpexwarning} that the survey is best used to gain insights into the beliefs of the class as a whole.
Online discussions take place within the regular course context and over its complete duration. They are a rich source of feedback to the instructor~\cite{kortemeyer05feedback}, and their quality and character was found to be correlated with the type and difficulty of the associated problems~\cite{kortemeyer05ana}, i.e., data exists regarding the influence of {\it problem} characteristics on associated discussions. Unfortunately, less data exists on the correlation between {\it student} characteristics and discussion behavior, because usually only very few student characteristics are known, with the exception of the students' overall performance in the course. Thus, one of the few findings was the fact that certain discussion behavior, most prominently exhibited on ``non-sanctioned'' discussion sites external to the course, is negatively correlated with performance in the course~\cite{kashy03,kortemeyer05ana}.
-Few studies exist on the correlation between beliefs data gathered in research settings and actual discussion behavior in the course. For example, Hogan~\cite{hogan99} assessed eight graders' epistemological frameworks through interviews and then analyzed their discussion behavior in a science course with a particular focus on collaboration, finding a number of correlations. In the interviews, students were ask to articulate views about themselves, about how they learn, and about the subject area. It was found that students' views on learning most strongly correlated with their peer-discussion behavior, for example, students who exhibited a constructivist view of learning were also most strongly engaged in the peer-discussions and collaborative knowledge building. In this paper, we investigate if similar correlations exist between online peer-discussions and epistemological beliefs, and if those in turn are correlated with measures of student learning.
+Few studies exist on the correlation between beliefs data gathered in research settings and actual discussion behavior in the course. For example, Hogan~\cite{hogan99} assessed eight graders' epistemological frameworks through interviews and then analyzed their discussion behavior in a science course with a particular focus on collaboration, finding a number of correlations. In the interviews, students were ask to articulate views about themselves, about how they learn, and about the subject area. It was found that students' views on learning most strongly correlated with their peer-discussion behavior, for example, students who exhibited a constructivist view of learning were also most strongly engaged in the peer-discussions and collaborative knowledge building.
+Hogan's study supports the importance of the distinction between public and personal epistemologies: public epistemologies are beliefs held about the general nature of discovery and knowledge in the scientific community, while personal epistemologies are beliefs about one's own knowledge and learning~\cite{lising05,hofer01}. Discussion behavior seems to be most closely related to personal epistemologies~\cite{hogan99}.
+
+In this paper, we investigate if correlations similar to those found by Hogan exist between online peer-discussions and epistemological beliefs, and if those in turn are correlated with measures of student learning.
\section{\label{setting}Setting}
-The project was carried out in an introductory calculus-based physics course with initially 214 students. Most of the students in this course plan on pursuing a career in a medical field. The course had three traditional lectures per week. It did not use a textbook, instead, all course materials were available online. Topics were introductory mechanics, as well as sound and thermodynamics. There was twice-weekly online homework: one small set as reading problems due before the topic was dealt with in class (implementing JiTT~\cite{jitt}), and a larger set of traditional end-of-the-chapter style homework at the end of each topic. The online problems in the course were randomized using the LON-CAPA system, i.e., different students would receive different versions of the same problem (different graphs, numbers, images, options, formulas, etc)~\cite{loncapa,kashyd01}. The students had weekly recitation sessions, and a traditional lab was offered in parallel. The course grade was determined from the students' performance on biweekly quizzes, the final exam, the recitation grades, and the homework performance.
+The project was carried out in an introductory calculus-based physics course with initially 214 students. Most of the students in this course plan on pursuing a career in a medical field. The students are members of a residential college on campus of Michigan State University which stresses courses about the nature and philosophy of science (public epistemology). The course had three traditional lectures per week. It did not use a textbook, instead, all course materials were available online. Topics were introductory mechanics, as well as sound and thermodynamics. There was twice-weekly online homework: one small set as reading problems due before the topic was dealt with in class (implementing JiTT~\cite{jitt}), and a larger set of traditional end-of-the-chapter style homework at the end of each topic. The online problems in the course were randomized using the LON-CAPA system, i.e., different students would receive different versions of the same problem (different graphs, numbers, images, options, formulas, etc)~\cite{loncapa,kashyd01}. The students had weekly recitation sessions, and a traditional lab was offered in parallel. The course grade was determined from the students' performance on biweekly quizzes, the final exam, the recitation grades, and the homework performance.
\section{\label{measures}Measures and Instruments}
\subsection{\label{discussion}Discussion Analysis}
@@ -270,13 +275,14 @@
On the other hand, student discussions correlate more strongly with performance measures. Students are taking them seriously, likely because they are perceived as helpful and relevant. In the same post-course survey, 89\% of the students found the discussions either helpful or very helpful, and 73\% stated that they used the discussions to learn physics, as opposed to 35\% who said they often or very often just used the discussions to get the correct result as quickly as possible.
While experts would characterize most postings as ``bad strategy,''
-only 17\% of the students admitted that they often against better knowledge used bad problem solving strategies to get the correct result as soon as possible, and 48\% stated that they rarely or never did so (35\% were not sure). So, about half of the students claim that their online discussion
+only 17\% of the students admitted that they often against better knowledge used bad problem solving strategies to get the correct result as soon as possible, and 48\% stated that they rarely or never did so (35\% were not sure). In the semester after this study was carried out, the author, as a result of the above findings, with a new group of students spent extra time in class demonstrating both good and bad solving strategies, and explaining why bad strategies are bad and eventually work against you. Also, the learning assistants were asked to pay special attention to good problem solving strategies in recitations. At the end of that semester, out of 156 respondents,
+3\% admitted that they {\it always} against better knowledge used bad problem solving strategies to get the correct result as soon as possible, 11\% stated they often did so, and 52\% stated that they rarely or never did so (33\% were not sure) --- outcomes that are only minimally different from the previous group of students. So, about half of the students claim that their online discussion
behavior reflects their epistemological views about physics problem solving;
but the other half either ``aren't sure'' or explicitly admit that their
strategies reflect expediency rather than their views about how best to
-learn physics. This finding corresponds to the study by Elby~\cite{elby99}, who found that students can perceive ``trying to understand physics deeply'' and ``pursuing good grades'' to be a different activities. Therefore, for the class as a whole, online discussion
-behavior reflects a combination of students' epistemological beliefs,
-expectations about what's rewarded in the class, and expediency.
+learn physics. These findings correspond to the study by Elby~\cite{elby99}, who found that students can perceive ``trying to understand physics deeply'' and ``pursuing good grades'' to be a different activities. They also again underline the difference between public and personal epistemologies: the students know that their strategy is bad (public epistemology), but decide it works best for them (personal epistemology), gets results quickly (expediency), and good problem solving behavior does not give them more points as long as they get the correct result (reward structure). Therefore, for the class as a whole, online discussion
+behavior reflects a combination of students' personal epistemological beliefs, expediency,
+and expectations about what's rewarded in the class.
--www1167922465--